It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that there can be no deal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff” the federal government faces at the end of the year unless congressional Republicans agree to increase income-tax rates on higher income earners.
However, a majority of the current House of Representatives and a majority of the newly elected House that will convene in January have pledged to the American people that they will not raise the tax rates.
ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked Pelosi: “Could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? We have seen talk about a possible compromise that would leave rates the same, but cap deductions for high-income earners. Is that something that's acceptable?
“No,” said Pelosi. ........................
Pelosi: Any Deal Must Increase Tax Rates; Majority of House Has Pledged Not To
Originally posted by links234
The government has already cut too many taxes. We need to raise revenue. Start with a 25% increase on everyone making more than $1 million. Eliminate all corporate tax breaks. End the wars and bring the troops home. We can go from there.
The 2012 budget was roughly 3.6 trillion. Cutting 25% across the board means 900 billion immediate savings FIRST YEAR! Ending the wars and bringing home the troops minimum of 100 billion saved FIRST YEAR. So far 1 Trillion cut FIRST YEAR. Cut all foreign aid 50 billion(we already cut 25% so 37.5 billion) so, approximate running total in the first year 1.0375 Trillion dollars.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen
Why don't you ask DarthMuerte how much of a dent we'll put in the deficit and the debt through cutting alone? Why are you only concerned with my idea of raising revenue?
Or better yet, we can let the economy crash and do a total reset from zero.
Originally posted by links234I mean...we can just go over the fiscal cliff and end up raising taxes on everyone and cutting $1 trillion from the government. That will reduce the deficit to a surplus in less than two years and cut our debt in half but...I don't hear a lot of clamor for having that happen.
No. The government is like a shopaholic woman with her ex-husband's credit cards. If you give them any more they will look for more ways to "invest it"; in vote buying. Time to make them go cold turkey. Cut up the credit cards.
Originally posted by links234We need to cut spending and raise revenues.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen
Why don't you ask DarthMuerte how much of a dent we'll put in the deficit and the debt through cutting alone? Why are you only concerned with my idea of raising revenue?
I mean...we can just go over the fiscal cliff and end up raising taxes on everyone and cutting $1 trillion from the government. That will reduce the deficit to a surplus in less than two years and cut our debt in half but...I don't hear a lot of clamor for having that happen.
We need to cut spending and raise revenues.
How much of a dent we'll put in the deficit and the debt through cutting alone?
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
The government already takes too much money. We need to cut spending. Start with a 25% cut to everything across the board. Eliminate all foreign aid. End the wars and bring the troops home. End the fed. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN. We can go from there.
Have you done your calculations yet ?
I mean...we can just go over the fiscal cliff and end up raising taxes on everyone and cutting $1 trillion from the government. That will reduce the deficit to a surplus in less than two years and cut our debt in half but...I don't hear a lot of clamor for having that happen.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by neo96
Ultimately that just proves that we need to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% and]/b] cut spending.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by solidguy
Seemed to work in the 50's and 60's and 80's and 90's.
Why wouldn't it work now?
reply to post by xuenchen
So...giving the wealthy more money (by maintaining these tax breaks) means they're just going to start hiring people because they have a few extra thousand dollars? You don't honestly believe that 'job creators' hire people just because they can, do you?
Besides, even you have to admit that some revenue is better than no revenue. Can you at least admit to that?
For the third and, hopefully, final time. I believe we need to CUT SPENDING[/B] and raise revenues. Not just one or the other.